Autonomous Dump Trucks Are Coming To Canada's Oil Sands 165
Daniel_Stuckey writes "According to a Bloomberg report, Canadian oil sands giant Suncor, which is "Canada's largest energy company by market value," is currently testing haul trucks that are run by computers. Extracting bitumen from sands requires first digging up an enormous amount of the sand itself, with about two tons of sands required to produce one barrel of oil. Digging up all of that sand is the job of huge excavators, which then offload into gigantic haul trucks that transport sands to extraction plants. Time is money, and in this case being faster means carrying as much sand as possible. Haul trucks can carry hundreds of tons at a time, and are in constant motion, moving back and forth between excavator and extraction plant."
Will they run Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm looking forward to the remake of "Christine" with a truck the size of a house in the title role.
Re:Will they run Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
Will they run Windows?
Not without updated drivers.
Re:Will they run Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm looking forward to the remake of "Christine" with a truck the size of a house in the title role.
You can get that even with human operators.
I worked on a mine that was being established in a very flat and remote part of Australia - not saying where, to protect the guilty. We had a number of Caterpillar 793s (dump trucks with about 2,600hp engines and 350 tonne loaded weight), including two set up as water carts with sprayers and water cannon for consolidating haul roads and dust suppression. Wile we were in construction phase, they were being used for siteworks, and to build the runway we'd eventually fly in and out of.
One night at about 1am, I had to go out to a water bore pump close to the partly-built airstrip, and saw the two 350 tonne water trucks well away from the runway, bouncing through the bush with their water cannons firing full-power pulses into the scrub. I stopped them and started asking some very pointed questions.
It turned out they'd seen a rabbit hop across the runway, and being very bored, had decided to try to shoot it with their water cannons. It then became competitive, and they ended up in a sort of tag match with the confused and very damp rabbit....
Re: (Score:1)
I'm looking forward to the remake of "Christine" with a truck the size of a house in the title role.
More like a remake of Killdozer [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
yes, at least they did. the euclids at kemess in canada literally failed to boot, at least once in my personal experience, costing at least a day total downtime, in this specific case as a result of a failed microsoft office upgrade. sometimes the parts do matter - in this case the trucks refused to run because they were unable to offload, and thus reset, the daily logs, after having been shut down for the night. this happened, as far as memory serves, because an automatic microsoft update broke the outda
Re: (Score:2)
You can merely just retrain the dump truck operators to excavator operators, double your dump trucks, and double your throughput. No jobs lost, double throughput.
Re: (Score:2)
There is zero unemployment... (Score:2)
...in the Athabasca region where the Canadian oil sands are...literally the only people not employed there are not employable due to disability or other personal issues...indeed many workers live all over Canada and fly in for their shifts and stay in company work camps
Automating these trucks would free up workers for other much needed labour elsewhere plus make operations safer and more efficient.
So God ... (Score:4, Funny)
Public Service Annoucemnt (Score:5, Insightful)
If you drive a vehicle for a living, start training for another job ASAP. This is the tip of the iceberg. I honestly think that in 25 years zero humans will be paid to drive a vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who drive vehicles for a living weren't trained to begin with...
Re: (Score:2)
That's irrelevant (and not true). Driving jobs are already starting to disappear. People who are currently driving for a living can either train for a skilled job, or accept an unskilled job that will almost certainly be a pay decrease.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving jobs are already starting to disappear.
Depends on where you are, there's a huge demand for driving jobs in Canada still. The problem and the gutting and cutting of driving jobs comes from companies who hire drivers who are trained in fly-by-night schools, or where companies try to cut corners by bringing in unskilled labor from the 3rd world and run them through the fly-by-night causing lovely accidents and said company eventually self destructs from insurance costs.
I looked into professional driving 5ish years ago, and there are days I wish I'
Re: (Score:2)
try fifty..
you could easily argue though that any driving job is a dead end one and eventually hazardous to health so it's enough to argue that one should train for something more - at least some specialized drive case if nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the same goes for every other job. If you can't break into the owner class, and if we don't have some rather extensive economic restructuring, you're screwed.
Rio Tinto has done this for a while - Australia (Score:5, Informative)
Rio Tinto has used autonomous trucks on some of its Iron Ore mines in the Pilbara region (north west Australia) for a number of years now (trials began in 2008). They also use it in conjunction with driver-less trains to haul the ore to the ports. In about April this year they announced that the driveless trucks had shifted 100 million tonnes of ore#1.
For those who think it will obsolete humans, I believe they are dead wrong. It will obsolete some skill sets, but not people. It creates other jobs and frees up labour resources for other uses. It is no different to the Scythe. Prior to its invention there was a much higher demand for labour to harvest fields, the scythe allowed the finite resource that is labour to be used somewhere else. If you believe self driving trucks will make people obsolete, what you are actually saying is that driving trucks is all that person is capable of. If that is the case I obviously have a much higher opinion of people than you do.
1 - http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/rio-s-driverless-trucks-move-100-million-tonnes [miningaustralia.com.au]
Re: (Score:3)
" If you believe self driving trucks will make people obsolete, what you are actually saying is that driving trucks is all that person is capable of. "
No, and your Asserted Conclusion does not make it so.
The world is full of capable people. The ideal business has no workers, and tech improvements entail job destruction but do not automatically entail job replacement.
The large, manned mining trucks replaced smaller trucks which replaced rail. Mechanized mining replaced manual digging and large machi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Job destruction through automation implies that it can be done cheaper per unit of production through automation than through using humans. The net effect of this has to be that final cost of a unit of production goes does. This ergo results in more resources available at a lower price reducing the barrier to entry to other tasks that would otherwise be rendered too high a cost.
A person with $5 to spend has a greater purchasing power if everything is cheaper than if everything is more expensive. If you h
Re: (Score:3)
Some people can't do anything more valuable than driving a truck. They will be rendered unemployable either when the tech for self-driving trucks gets cheap or when the government makes them artificially uncompetitive through minimum wage laws and other laws that raise the cost of employing humans instead of robots.
Re: (Score:2)
value of driving a truck depends entirely how much value you get out of driving a truck.
this is however the firs time I've seen a claim that someone is unable to do something else valuable, janitor work, massages, construction, plumbing or whatever but would be able to drive a 250 ton truck reliably!
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom of the barrel (Score:5, Insightful)
If anybody still needs evidence that we're past peak oil, this is it.
Re-read that summary: two tons of sand have to be hauled away to the processing center just to get a single barrel of oil.
And remember Deepwater Horizon? The rig that went kablooie in the Gulf? The wellhead was a mile below the surface of the ocean, and the top of the deposits were seven miles below bedrock.
Long gone are the days when you had to be careful with your pickaxe in Texas lest you set off a gusher. We're now washing two tons of sand per barrel of oil just to feed the habit.
Oh, sure. There's still lots of oil left in the ground. About half as much as there was at the start of the industrial revolution, in fact. But it's all the nasty low-quality expensive shit that we would have laughed and turned up our noses at in the '70s. But not today.
Worst of all, we're now consuming oil at a faster rate than ever before in history. The only way we could keep the remaining half of reserves to last another century is if we decreased production by 2% - 3% annually, same as it used to grow. Can you imagine a century's worth of that kind of contraction?
No?
Then get ready for price shocks and the crash to end all crashes as we run out of what little is left in mere decades, and not that many.
Cheers,
b&
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but no. I directly service the resources industry and there are way to many startup companies hitting easy to access reserves to say we are about to run out. No it's not the same as it was with pressurised reservoirs at shallow depths but this is exactly the same argument that was used to say that certain areas were mined out 100 years ago. Many of the precious metals mines that operate today operate where previous people thought they had got everything. Simply put they hadn't even come close.
We
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if we pass "peak oil" and no one notices? If you haven't been keeping track, supply is "not an issue" at current prices, and current oil prices seem unlikely to cause the collapse of society (there is more oil available in sands and shale than perhaps you realize - perhaps more than all the liquid oil there ever was). Perhaps oil usage will peak soon: eventually some other energy storage technology is bound to take over for transportation, but not in a bad way.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
two tons of sand have to be hauled away to the processing center just to get a single barrel of oil.
2 Tons of oil soaked sand is not that much sand and would fit in the back of my pickup truck.
2 tons of DRY sand is about 1.5 cubic feet. A 3ft x 3ft x 3ft block sand...smaller if it is soaked in oil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what?!?
One barrel of crude oil has a weight of 138.8 kilograms or 306 pounds, assuming we use a kiloton of sand to produce it, I'm still not concerned.
14%? I'll take it.
Re: (Score:2)
TWO tons.
Fine.
7%.
I'm still happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't using a computer that has absolutely no plastics then congratulations. Otherwise, thanks for being a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can only hope.
Meanwhile, why aren't they building a railway or conveyor system? Trucks are expensive to run, even robot trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Then get ready for price shocks and the crash to end all crashes as we run out of what little is left in mere decades, and not that many.
Why will that happen? We're already seeing one effect of "peak oil" that precludes that: higher oil prices when adjusted for inflation. For example, current oil prices [inflationdata.com] are roughly 4 times more expensive when adjusted for inflation than they were in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that we suck at predicting when doesn't magically make it a non issue.
But it is a good indication that the issue is being blown out of proportion.
If anything, that makes it all the more scarier because we likely won't be expecting it when it does happen.
Sure, it'll really suck when we brush off that zombie outbreak or alien invasion because of all those Hollywood predictions. As I see it, being very wrong for decades at a time is not a good indication that you will ever be right.
Not even close (Score:2)
This is not a reflection of scraping the bottom of the barrel but rather a perfect example of how good we've gotten in the process industry.
Yes 100 years ago oil was gushing from fountains, but even back then peak oil was just around the corner. Only the lighter sweeter crudes were useful. Oil was distilled in batch stills which took incredible amounts of realestate and energy for very little output. Every year a few more comments of peak oil popped up. Oh my god we need to catalytically crack heavy hydroca
so a cubic meter (Score:1)
two tons is not that much. Assuming metric, sand/gravel is around 2000 kg / cubic meter, or you know, 2 tonnes. So really the above is saying that you require a cubic meter of sand to create a barrel of oil.
Maybe I would understand this better if it was given to me in library of congresses.
qd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes 1.2 x 10^(-7) cubic furlongs of sand to make 4 firkins of oil, so about an 8-9 to 1 reduction.
Wait, how does this make $$ Sense? (Score:1)
2 tons of sand for one barrel of oil? With all the processes needed to get the sand and process it that sure doesn't sound like it makes monetary sense to even extract the oil in the first place... can someone help me understand what I'm missing?
Re: (Score:1)
You're missing that there's money to be made doing it. As long as there are enough profits to be made, there'll be oil extracted from those sands.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're under the mistaken impression that a "barrel" is a large unit. Yeah, it's "only" 2 tons per barrel --- but barrels are generally counted by the billions per year. One barrel gives an SUV gas tank fill-up or two. And you're moving, processing, and dumping the noxious waste from two tons of sludge for just *that*.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the "noxious waste" is mostly sand. As for dumping it, it will most likely end up back where it came from. Major environmental disaster there.
Re: (Score:2)
That "oil" is actually bitumen, a tar like substance which needs massive amounts of water and energy to extract some useful gasoline. The amount of waste is quite high when it comes to refining tar into just about anything else.
The Conservatives have really pushed the political correct name of "oil" sands for the tar sands in the hope that people will believe it is oil they're digging up.
Currently Northern Alberta is successfully competing with China for the worlds most polluted area and it is only going to
Re: (Score:2)
2 tonnes isn't a particularly impressive volume or weight. Humans are used to thinking in terms of what they can lift manually, which means nothing on an industrial scale.
money better spent on sofa's and couches (Score:1)
in dealing with that male inferiority complex that leads
to an irresistable urge to drive around in a hummer.
Not just driving (Score:5, Insightful)
This all comes down to three simple questions, can it be done better, more reliably, and cheaper?
Each of these questions will have interesting twists. I suspect that in the above case of the robot trucks that they will occasionally screw up and not want to cross a puddle or some stupidity but that over all costs will drop and consistent productivity will be, on average, much higher. The same with say replacing a cook with a robot; it might not be better than the best cooks but as long as it is better than average, costs less, and the owner doesn't have to worry about it showing up on time then bye bye cooks.
But again the key is that robots will be so much better at certain things as to make them far more valuable then a simple spreadsheet analysis might indicate. In the case of a robot cook, if it is always preparing food in an extremely consistent way and always there then you might think that it isn't much better than a chef who only misses 2 days a year and only has 2 off days per year. But the reality is that an off day or a long wait due to a missing cook could kill off a few regular customers resulting in a much larger loss than the few nights directly impacted.
The next impact will be that robots have the ultimate case of OCD. So if you want you could have the robots go out into the field and pick the bugs, one at a time, off your plants. This is simply something that humans won't do as they would lose their minds. The same with things like cooking. A robot could place exactly 23 onions onto a certain dish placed in (artistically designed) exacting locations. A table in the restaurant could be told that their meals will be ready in 6 minutes 3 seconds as the chef has plotted the temperatures of the meat and knows exactly how long each step is going to take.
A simple example of this sort of variation having an impact can be observed with the medical helicopters that fly over my house. One of the pilots sets the collective wrong and the helicopter is noisy. He also is ponderous about leaving the helipad and flies fairly slowly. The other pilot lifts off and in one nice smooth movement turns, speeds up, retracts the gear, and is off like a flash. The landings are basically the same thing in reverse. I suspect the patient survival rates between the two pilots is very different.
Re: (Score:2)
But again the key is that robots will be so much better at certain things as to make them far more valuable then a simple spreadsheet analysis might indicate. In the case of a robot cook, if it is always preparing food in an extremely consistent way and always there then you might think that it isn't much better than a chef who only misses 2 days a year and only has 2 off days per year. But the reality is that an off day or a long wait due to a missing cook could kill off a few regular customers resulting in a much larger loss than the few nights directly impacted.
It'll be a long time before a robot gets that reliable. And you still have to deal with licensing fees and such.
The problem with all this is that labor just isn't that expensive in most of the world while capital and raw materials are. So replacing a lost cost, reliable person with a high capital robotics system is not an improvement.
Robotics would have a lot less traction if the developed world hadn't driven up the cost of labor so much over the decades.
Re: (Score:2)
No No No! (Score:2)
This is an illusion and not actually happening. You see, they haven't built the Keystone XL pipeline (north segment), yet. As long as they don't build that, the dirty Alberta oil sands will stay in the ground. Daryl Hannah told me so. Madison wouldn't lie, would she? (Elle Driver now, that's another story!)
I for one (Score:2)
To get an idea of the size of these vehicles (Score:3)
To get an idea of the size of these trucks:
1) Overview of the Caterpillar 797B mining dump trucks, at the Albion Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada. [youtube.com]
2) The mining shovel which loads (and dwarfs) the 797B. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
US oil production has consistently increased throughout Obama's presidency, after decreasing throughout Bush's presidency.
There's nothing "desperate" about our energy situation. Gasoline is $3.20/gallon- a lot cheaper than in Canada.
It's convenient for us to buy Canadian oil because of the easy transport. If you don't want our money, many other countries will be happy to take it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want our money, many other countries will be happy to take it.
No longer true, to be honest. People (read countries) still take it, but they're no longer happy about it. In fact a lot of them are planning to move away from it. The biggest customer for US Treasuries is the US Federal Reserve nowadays . Go figure.
Re:Oil Sands (Score:4, Informative)
This sums things up nicely: http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx [petro-canada.ca]
Take your $3.20 a gallon price and tax it to the level Canada does and see what you would pay.
PS.
I remember filling my car in NJ in the low $2's
Re: (Score:1)
I've never heard them referred to as such. Also, the United States is a legal entity, an abstraction. It cannot speak, much less "refer" to anything using one particular phrase. That's a rather absurd anthropomorphization. The United States never says anything, and its people say a lot of different things, often contradictory.
In any case, aside from a few confused individuals, most people I know of understand that oil is a global market, so the question of where the oil is located has little to do with
Re: (Score:2)
> Also, the United States is a legal entity, an abstraction. It cannot speak, much less "refer" to anything using one particular phrase. That's a rather absurd anthropomorphization.
But its corporations are people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, keep reiterating that tired lie until you actually start to believe it. Please post a link to any Supreme Court case which makes this statement true and quote the relevant sections.
Re: (Score:2)
So you managed to link to a piece that states what you said, and the Supreme Court case that is based on.
Please finish the other part of the request, and actually quote the line "corporations are people" from that court decision.
Having just downloaded it, and searched for all instances of the word "people", I see nothing that says "corporations are people".
Please point it out, quoting the paragraph, and noting the page number for us.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
So you know, I am with you on this, but our OP may have his head befuddled but certain news centers and are talented in twists separate bits into a new meme. Perhaps he/she was refering to this source [google.com]. However you slice it, it is old, it is not true, and it is a reflection of how far down the road to fascism the US has gone.
Re: (Score:2)
The citizens united decision explains in totally unambiguous terms that corporations have the same right as people with regards to speech. Read it.
Remember I was responding to:
> Also, the United States is a legal entity, an abstraction. It cannot speak, much less "refer" to anything using one particular phrase. That's a rather absurd anthropomorphization.
and my response was that anthropomorphizing is ok when it concerns corporations, at least when they are granted the speech rights that the constitution
Re: (Score:2)
No, but thanks for trying and failing,
Citizens United said that a group of Citizens who form a corporation for the purpose of pooling their money (as required by federal law) in order to make political speech cannot be prevented from using that money to make political speech.
It also pointed out the hypocrisy of someone like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow complaining about corporations like Citizens United or Rolls Royce being allowed to make political speech when they are (were at the time) being paid by
Re: (Score:2)
You could have just said you didn't read it. There's a link right up there, and it's not very long...
"Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity."
"Austin is overruled"
Read the whole thing. Corporations are equal to people when it comes to freedom of political speech.
Re: (Score:1)
creates and supports local jobs
That is the justification for any number of evils. Tax breaks, zoning variances, pollution exceptions, wetland destruction, whatever. In this case the only jobs created will be for truck automation programmers in India.
I am haveing an dobut. Please to do the needful (Score:2)
Indian programmers are well respected for their technical skills, but I'm concerned about their domain knowledge here.
I've never been to India but I've seen several TV programs and youtube videos and I still can't work out whether they're supposed to drive on the left or the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously it depends on which side the steering wheel is on.
Re:Oil Sands (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Careful now... last time you declared war on Canada, your White House was burned to the ground.
Actually, the last time we tried to declare war on "Canada", they got scared and split the Oregon Territory rather than fight... Also, technically, both times were with the UK, not Canada, but if float the Canadian ego ;^)
Re: (Score:3)
That is all the encouragement I need. Let's do this.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Grenada took too long to finish up. Don't know what the cost was, either projected or actual.
Re: (Score:2)
Might have been cheaper to try to buy it, and no one would have died/been injured.
But then we wouldn't have gotten a great movie out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good stuff, but something best eaten occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they are referring to Poutine? Good stuff, but something best eaten occasionally.
Poutine is fries with cheese curds and gravy. Most restaurants will have salt, pepper, and ketchup at the table. A significant portion of those will also have vinegar. You almost always have to ask for mayo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obsolete Humans (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a common discussion, but fortunately in the oil industry it won't happen for a long time.
The oil industry is notoriously slow-moving. The executives do not like new tech. New tech is untested, unproven. That means risky, and risky means both lawsuits and lost production time. Then, once the executives finally sign off on it and it gets built, the roughnecks simply don't use it, especially with automatic systems. Why automate something they've been doing well enough for decades, they say. I've watched a worker switch off a million-dollar heave compensator (adjusts crane speed based on ocean wave motion, so a bobbing ship can smoothly lay a load onto the still seafloor) because "the computer don't know what it's doin'."
Other professions might lose out to automation. But the oil industry roughnecks will be working for a long time yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will me MUCH longer for these autonomous trucks to show up on public highways than private quarries and oil fields with no humans within a mile.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common discussion, but fortunately in the oil industry it won't happen for a long time. The oil industry is notoriously slow-moving. The executives do not like new tech. New tech is untested, unproven.
When I was a kid in the 80s I remember reading about how many of the advancements in deepwater production or seismic imaging then common in the fossil fuel industry would have been considered science fiction in the 50s. It's always been my (admittedly casual) observation that the FF business is more cutting edge in testing out new techniques than many other sectors of industry - perhaps not as much as the computer sector, much more so than the automotive.
This doesn't really apply to on the ground occupatio
Re:Obsolete Humans (Score:5, Insightful)
Forty or fifty years ago "ordinary" people could take a job at the local factory, make enough to support a family and buy a house, and know that after 35 years they would have a good pension to retire on.
When I say "ordinary" I mean the people who won't ever go to university, who will never become computer programmers or doctors, and who surely aren't about to be "entrepreneurs." The people who used to be called "working stiffs" or "blue collar workers."
Once the blue collar jobs are gone, what do you do with these people - say a quarter of your population? Wal-mart jobs? Call centers? Waving pizza signs on street corners?
Re: (Score:2)
Soylent Green?
These are the people that the elites, like Bush the Elected, have been observed to call "useless eaters". Many of the decent service jobs, such as truck driver, newspaper reporter, radio disk jockey, cashier, and the like, are also going away. I don't know what my nephews and nieces kids are going to do for a living.
Re: (Score:3)
Forty or fifty years ago "ordinary" people could take a job at the local factory, make enough to support a family and buy a house, ...
Forty of fifty years ago, median wages (adjusted for inflation) were lower, labor force participation rates were significantly less, the median house was 30% smaller than today, and that house was much less likely to be owned by the person that lives in it. Your nostalgia for "the good old days" isn't supported by the facts.
Once the blue collar jobs are gone, what do you do with these people
Most manufacturing jobs are already gone, and since total labor force participation has gone UP, it is clear that these people have already found other jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there's the correlation between elimination of (relatively) decent-waged manufacturing jobs and the increasing number of people who work two jobs, two income households, etc is an anomaly.
What happens to our consumer driven economy when a large swatch of consumers can't afford to consume?
Re: (Score:2)
Replaced by jobs in the low paying service sector. So while labour force participation has increased somewhat, real US household incomes have remained almost stationary for the bottom 80% of US workers.
Re: (Score:2)
real US household incomes have remained almost stationary for the bottom 80% of US workers.
Baloney. Over the last fifty years, real (adjusted for inflation) median (50% level) incomes have gone up by 60%. Much of that gain was in the 1960s and 1970s, but even if you look at the last thirty years, people at the bottom have done better than inflation figures suggest. This is because inflation has been more severe for services than for goods. Rich people spend mostly on services, and poor people spend mostly on goods. So inflation has less effect on the purchasing power of the poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Most charts do not show this, for example: http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf [stanford.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Most charts do not show this, for example: http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf [stanford.edu]
You need to get your eyes checked. Your own link shows real (inflation adjusted) income increasing from $24k to $40k over fifty years, which is a 66% gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How come "median wages adjusted for inflation" in 2011 are at the same level as 1995?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/17/the-typical-american-family-makes-less-than-it-did-in-1989/ [washingtonpost.com]
While you are correct, unemployment/labour force numbers look good its the quality of the work/pay that is not (mostly low paying service industry jobs).
Re: (Score:2)
Wages as a proportion of GDP are much lower than they used to be. House sizes are irrelevant, and only really in America, yet the trend for mass unemployement and low wages is common across the developed world.
Wow. Mod Parent FUNNY (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gradually, bit by bit, each human worker in the economy is becoming obsoleted. This is pretty cool technology, and if the way our economy and politics worked was similarly cool this would be an undeniably great thing.
However, socially this means reduction in employment, and reduction in wages paid for others. Steadily, over time, we have broken down professions and it will be increasingly hard to find things humans are actually useful for as employees or business operators in 'the economy.' What then?
Fortunately, humans always want more goods and services. If 100% of existing goods and services were provided by robot, we could still have full employment providing more.
I believe eventually we'll all have jobs providing consulting services to one another on which of all this free stuff made by robots would please us most. And the sexbots aren't going to program themselves, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
However, socially this means reduction in employment, and reduction in wages paid for others.
People have been believed this nonsense for so long that there is a term for it: The Lump of Labor Fallacy [wikipedia.org]. If automation actually caused impoverishment (as you claim) then Europe, America and Japan would be starving, and Ethiopia and Afghanistan would be the envy of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Along with the grade and other factors, rail or conveyor are not as flexible as trucks. The locations from which they dig change too rapidly as they move through the mine site to set up a fixed conveyance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Durkk a durrrr!
we need health care not tied to jobs and maybe eve (Score:2)
we need health care not tied to jobs and maybe even cut full time down to 20-35 hours with the OT pay kicking in after say 30-32 hours a week with the NO OT on salary pay having a min level of like 90-100K + COL.